Currently, there's a lot of EA-relevant content created by EAs on the Forum, but also a lot of such content scattered across a wide range of other sites. And many of those sites lack some of the features I like about the EA Forum (e.g., a tagging system, ability to vote, ability to comment, a community that's more thoughtful and epistemically charitable than average).

So perhaps all EA-relevant content, all content created by EAs, or all content meeting both criteria should be posted or linkposted to the EA Forum. 

I think that that might have the following benefits:

• Making more EAs aware that that content exists
• Making it easier for someone who's looking for a certain type of thing to find all relevant content (e.g., by using tags, or searching on the Forum)
  • I often find it useful to use tag pages (e.g.) as collections of content on a given topic, either for my own learning or for sharing with someone who's interested in and relatively new to the topic. This would be even more useful if a larger portion of relevant content was able to be tagged on the Forum; at the moment lots of good stuff is missing, including even stuff posted on EA orgs' websites (not just stuff in academic journals, which we'll obviously never capture all of on the Forum).
• Making it easier for people to get a quick sense of whether it's worth their time to engage with the content, given their goals (because people could check the post's karma, comments, and/or tags)
• Allowing people to discuss the content, and allowing other people to see that discussion
  • I've often found comments on the Forum very interesting and useful

I'm interested in whether other people agree with those basic ideas.

---

And if people do agree with those basic ideas, where do you think we should draw the line? 

I think it'd clearly be silly to linkpost every single academic article on animal consciousness or bioengineering (even just those released from now on), or to linkpost every single blogposts EAs write (even those that are just about their gardens). At the other extreme, I think it'd clearly make sense to linkpost some papers, blog posts, podcast episodes, etc. What about the content between those poles?

I think my tentative independent impression is that a good policy would be:

Linkpost any content that meets the following criteria: 

• much more EA-relevant than average
• created by EAs
• perceive by you to be high-quality, or to be for some other reason interesting
• it doesn't seem like the author would want you to not linkpost this (e.g., it's not something semi-personal that they'd want kept on just their own blog)

Linkpost some content that doesn't meet all of those criteria, if there are other good reasons for linkposting it. E.g., if it's a good example of non-EAs from a particular field beginning to take interest in EA-relevant issues, or if it sparked an interesting thought that you want to comment on briefly in the linkpost.

But I think that that policy would be a substantial departure from what's currently done, so maybe there are good arguments against it.

This question post was sort-of prompted by an earlier comment from EdoArad, so thanks to him for that. It was also sort-of prompted by me deciding to linkpost the latest episode from the 80,000 Hours Podcast feed, and wondering whether all such episodes should be linkposted.